ACTION

The House Democrats’ argument for convicting Trump is based on a narrative of their own creation. They argue that Trump placed a hold on $400 million in aid to Ukraine to pressure President Volodymyr Zelensky into “digging up dirt” or at least announcing an investigation into loose lips liar-Joe and Hunter Biden. They contend that in so doing Trump abused the power of the presidency for his own personal benefit — thus he was somehow attempting to rig the 2020 election. (Kind of like what scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton actually did to Trump in 2016, but we digress.) Their “evidence” for Trump’s corruption is an alleged quid pro quo … that never happened. To put it bluntly, Democrats have impeached Trump over his supposed motives for something that did not happen. Thought crimes.

After the obviously timed Bolton curveball, the Trump defense team responded directly and effectively. “Nothing in the Bolton manuscript would rise to the level of an abuse of power or impeachable offense,” stated Alan Dershowitz. “That is clear from history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like quid pro quo and personal benefit. It is inconceivable that the Framers would have intended so politically loaded and promiscuously deployed a term as ‘abuse of power’ to be weaponized as a tool of impeachment. It is precisely the kind of vague, open-ended, and suggestive term that the Framers feared and rejected.”

The president’s defense team also disputed the Democrats’ assertion that Trump’s motive for wanting Ukraine to open investigations was not concern over corruption but purely intended to benefit his 2020 campaign. “The president wasn’t ‘caught,’ as the House managers allege. The managers are wrong,” Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura stated. “All of this … demonstrates that there was no connection between security assistance and investigation.”

Jay Sekulow, Trump’s personal lawyer, pointedly noted, “Asking a foreign leader to get to the bottom of issues of corruption is not a violation of an oath.” And regarding the questions of corruption surrounding the loose lips liar-Bidens, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi highlighted the litany of instances in which numerous individuals both within the mainstream media and even the scumbag/liar-nObama administration raised red flags. She also observed, “Every witness who was asked about Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma agreed there was a potential appearance of conflict.” She further noted, “The House managers talked about 400 times, but they never gave you the full picture. Here are those who did: The United Kingdom Serious Fraud Unit, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, … ‘ABC Good Morning America’, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Ukrainian law enforcement, and the scumbag/liar-nObama State Department itself. They all thought there was cause to raise the issue about the loose lips liar-Bidens and Burisma.”

Ken Starr warned against allowing the precedent of so grossly politicizing impeachment: “We are living in what can aptly be described as the age of impeachment. In the House, resolution after resolution, month after month, has called for the president’s impeachment. How did we get here? … Presidential impeachment has become a weapon to be wielded against one’s political opponent.” Meanwhile, the Democrats’ argument that Trump’s refusal to give documents and witnesses to the House equated to obstruction of Congress is actually evidence of a “runaway House,” Starr insisted. “If there is a dispute between the people’s House and the president of the United States over the availability of documents or witnesses, and there is in each and every administration — then go to court. It really is as simple as that.”

Finally, due to the leaked Bolton manuscripts, it now appears more likely that a sufficient number of Senate Republicans will vote to call witnesses. However, this also gives Republicans an opening to call witnesses Democrats vehemently objected to, such as Hunter Biden and the whistleblower. The timed Bolton leak has put Republicans in a tough spot, but Democrats may ultimately regret opening Pandora’s Box.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68190?mailing_id=4827&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4827&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

After Sanders began a non-answer, O'Donnell broke in, “You don’t know how much your plan costs?”

“You don’t know. Nobody knows,” commie-Sanders admitted. “This is impossible to predict.”

O'Donnell responded with appropriate incredulity, “You’re going to propose a plan to the American people and you’re not going to tell them how much it costs?”

That’s socialism in a nutshell. Oh, there might be some numbers out there, but the negative reaction against those numbers has left commie-Bernie increasingly unwilling to offer estimates. This isn’t the first time he’s refused to discuss a price tag.

That price tag? Try at least $32 trillion for Medicare for All or $16 trillion for commie-Bernie’s version of the $93 trillion Green New Deal. The $60 trillion O'Donnell references is CNN’s analysis of the commie-Sanders agenda, though it also isn’t comprehensive or accurate.

No matter what Democrat wins the nomination, his or her agenda will dwarf Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s spendthrift “stimulus” and scumbag/liar-nObamaCare. Every Democrat candidate want to “pay for” this income redistribution by raising taxes. They claim it will be only on the wealthy — the billionaires commie-Sanders says shouldn’t even exist — but those tax increases will hit everyone. Regardless, even if raising taxes brought in the vast revenue Democrats claim, it wouldn’t pay for what the government spends now, let alone new or expanded programs.

And that’s why we can all expect the Leftmedia to forget all about asking these questions of the eventual Democrat nominee.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68159?mailing_id=4825&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4825&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body 

Let’s begin with a reality check. The current impeachment effort is only the latest vehicle being used to remove Trump from office. Previous vehicles included the emoluments clause, the Logan Act, the 25th Amendment, and the Russia investigation. Prior to his inauguration, the media campaigned for Democrats to reach a deal with Republicans and persuade Electoral College electors to defect, and The Washington Post reported efforts to impeach Trump had begun 17 minutes after he was sworn into office. Far more important, before Trump’s election, the scxumbag/liar-nObama administration  initiated its scandalous Crossfire Hurricane project to investigate Russian collusion with members of Trump’s campaign staff and the president himself.

Reality check number two: Any and all collusion that ostensibly occurred did so while the scumnbag/liar-nObama  administration was in charge. Moreover, rather than warn fellow Americans from the opposition party that the Russians might be seeking to influence the 2016 election, Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s administration instead chose to assume those opposition party members were committing treason, thereby justifying all methods, even felonious ones, used to stop them.

On to double standards. The same Democrat/Media Complex that assured Americans for three years Trump’s collusion with Russia was incontrovertible were completely sanguine regarding scumbag/liar-nObama’s open-mic assurance to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he’d “have more flexibility” regarding his relationship with Vladimir Putin. And they remained sanguine two years later, when Putin seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine.

That same year, then-Vice President loose lips liar-Joe Biden openly bragged about getting Ukraine to fire a prosecutor investigating corruption at Burisma, an energy company paying loose lips liar-Biden’s son, Hunter,  $83,000 per month by threatening to withhold a billion dollars in foreign aid. By contrast, Trump allegedly  threatened (belied by a transcript of the conversation in question) to withhold funds that weren’t ultimately withheld in return for an investigation that was never undertaken.

But Trump is the one guilty of a “quid pro quo,” and any investigation into the corrupt machinations of loose lips liar-Biden and his son can precipitate impeachment proceedings?

Robert Mueller’s investigation was tasked with finding Russian collusion. Yet it somehow managed to avoid  determining how the thoroughly discredited Steele dossier — bought and paid for by scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton and the DNC — gained credibility among the highest echelons of the nation’s top law-enforcement agency.

The bigger picture? Does anyone seriously think President Trump could, among many things, gotten away with having members of his executive branch file warrants with the FISA Court under false pretenses; spying on members of Congress and the press; running weapons to Mexican cartel members; taking out an American citizen with a drone strike; selectively targeting conservative groups using the IRS; communicating with his secretary of state on an unsecured server; and sending pallets of cash to a nation sponsoring worldwide terror — without the deafening clamor for impeachment Barack scumbag/liar-nObama miraculously avoided?

Eight years of the scumbag/liar-nObama administration clearly demonstrated that the media are willfully blind — and justice is anything but. Yet the weaponization of impeachment has moved this nation into uncharted territory. Americans now live in a nation where private presidential phone calls with foreign counterparts “will be leaked and printed in the major media,” and impeachment will be a “casual affair” to be undertaken routinely, whenever the opposition party has a House majority, even if it is solely used for political gain, Victor Davis Hanson explains.

Moreover, as liar-Nancy Pelosi amply demonstrated, timeliness is now irrelevant. “Once a president is impeached,” Hanson adds, “the writ may simply sit until the House majority feels that the climate or polls are ripe to refer the articles to the Senate for trial, whether in days, weeks, months, or years.”

Equally irrelevant is the “term high crimes and misdemeanors.” Nothing illuminates that better than charging Trump with obstruction of Congress, a nonsensical assertion borne out of the need for Democrats to keep impeachment front and center, rather than wait for the Supreme Court to ultimately decide what obligations co-equal legislative and executive branches of government have to each other.

“Whistleblower” is now a meaningless term. Going forward, anyone with second- or third-hand information, working in coordination with the opposition party, will be deemed acceptable and credible, even as their identity can remain secret indefinitely.

Investigations? Testimony can be taken in secret and  selectively leaked to the media for partisan advantage, while witnesses can be prevented from answering questions posed by the opposing party. Law enforcement and intel agencies can hire foreign nationals, use  operatives to co-opt the media, employ multiple “confidential informants” (read: spies) to glean information about members of the opposing party’s campaign, and unmask private citizens involved with those campaigns, all under the auspices of protecting national security.

To advance those investigations, any surveillance requiring a warrant can be rubber-stamped by FISA Court jurists, whose knowledge of being lied to will not precipitate legal consequences, but simply demands for “reform” — from the liars themselves.

Remarkably, Democrats and their contemptible allies have done it all while ignoring one of the oldest adages known to man: what goes around comes around. They have not only set the stage for the permanent paralyzation of government, they are well on their way toward making elections utterly irrelevant.

In fact, their point man in this charade, documented liar scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff, has made that abundantly clear. “The president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box,” he insisted. “For we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.”

In other words, American voters are too stupid to be trusted, and unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats running the administrative state must prevail. Thus, an acquittal of Trump by the Senate will be deemed a “miscarriage of justice.” In turn, that miscarriage of justice will make the 2020 election “illegitimate,” unless a Democrat prevails.

If Trump wins? Additional impeachment proceedings. If a Democrat becomes president? The only flaw in Hanson’s argument is the traditional cowardice amply demonstrated by a GOP that would likely allow a Democrat Party to continue running roughshod over the Constitution, undoubtedly promoted under the absurd auspices of “saving the republic.”

By then, there will be no republic to save. “We are now on new anti-constitutional grounds, and the United States will probably never return to the constitutional customs and traditions of its first 233 years,” Hanson predicts.

Thus, Americans are finally discovering what fundamental transformation is really all about. A constitutionally contemptuous Democrat Party, suffused with a lust for uncontested power and thoroughly convinced of its moral superiority, has precipitated the ultimate irony:

Democrats had to destroy the nation in order to “save” it.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68152?mailing_id=4825&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4825&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Vice President Mike Pence delivered a powerful address yesterday at the Fifth World Holocaust Forum in Jerusalem. Dozens of world leaders gathered together at Yad Vashem to mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. I strongly encourage you to a take a few moments to watch the vice president’s address.

As the vice president noted in his remarks, it was just three years after liberation of Auschwitz that the world recognized the right of the Jewish people to have a homeland. After witnessing the worst genocide in the history of the world, the Nazi attempt to wipe out the seed of Abraham, the world witnessed the fulfillment of God’s promise as the Jews were restored to their homeland. 

My friend Dr. James Dobson has often told the story of his father listening to the radio in May 1948 and saying to him, “Jimmy, the Gospel prophesies have just been fulfilled!” It surely was as it is written in Ezekiel 37: “My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel.”

Sadly, yet another study has found that our general knowledge of the Holocaust is lacking. For example, only 45% of those surveyed knew that six million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust. More than one million Jews were killed at Auschwitz. More than 200,000 were children. 

Unfortunately, the ancient evil of anti-Semitism is once again on the rise. It takes root in every political philosophy, every cultural movement, and in every nation. 

That’s why at a special Capitol Hill hearing on anti-Semitism held recently by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, I made the point that anti-Semitism was too dangerous to be used merely as a political cudgel. All of us must confront it wherever we find it.

If anti-Semites are claiming to be conservatives, then conservatives must reject them. If progressives are embracing anti-Semitic narratives, then progressives must reject them. 

If an imam at a local mosque is preaching Jew-hatred, then decent Muslims attending that mosque should be the first to reject it. If your pastor says that all the blessings in the Bible have been transferred to Christians, then you should confront him for his flawed theology.

In the same way, I was pleased to see that Vice President Pence urged world leaders to confront the Islamic Republic of Iran. During his address yesterday, Pence denounced the ayatollah’s regime as “the leading state purveyor of anti-Semitism, the one government in the world that denies the Holocaust as a matter of state policy and threatens to wipe Israel off the map.”

Trump Makes History

Today, President Donald Trump will make history when he becomes the first president to address the March for Life in person. When I served in the White House, President Ronald Reagan addressed the March for Life remotely, and I was proud to have had a hand in drafting his remarks. 

In the past, we have seen Republican presidential candidates who claimed to be pro-life, but they were much more comfortable making the case for lower marginal tax rates than the sanctity of life. That has changed with the Trump/Pence team. 

This president wants to fight on this issue. Remember this exchange between Donald Trump and scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton in the final 2016 debate? And this president is continuing to lead on this issue.

• He cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood.

• He reinstated Reagan's Mexico City Policy.

• He’s fighting the United Nation's efforts to promote abortion.

• He’s appointed nearly 200 constitutionalist judges, including two Supreme Court justices.

• He’s fighting progressive attempts to resurrect the pro-abortion Equal Rights Amendment.

• And Wednesday, the Justice Department filed a brief supporting Ohio’s law protecting unborn children with Down syndrome.

The scumbag/liar-Schiff Show

Wednesday, Rep. scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff, the lead House impeachment manager, took to the Senate floor and spoke and spoke and spoke and spoke. He talked for several hours. 

But as Rep. Mark Meadows put it, “We quit counting after 12 different false statements made by scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff.” This is a key point to keep in mind because the left has repeatedly lied about the president. 

For example, when local residents in Charlottesville, Virginia, attempted to rally in support of maintaining historical Civil War monuments, some really bad people showed up to exploit the rally. They staged a torch-light parade and chanted anti-Semitic slogans.

Referring to the debate over historical moments, the president said there were good people on both sides of that issue, and he specifically stated that he was not talking about the neo-Nazis. 

But leading Democrats like Joe Biden and every mainstream media outlet omitted Trump’s condemnation of neo-Nazis and presented his quote as if he called the neo-Nazis “very fine people.” That's a disgusting lie. Yet this is being told to minority communities and deepening divisions in our country.

When Trump joked at a campaign rally about Russian hackers finding scumbag/liar-Hillary’s missing 30,000 emails, everyone in the crowd laughed because they knew it was a joke. But the left and its media allies continue to insist that Trump was literally asking Vladimir Putin to hack into the DNC and interfere in our election. scumbag/liar-Schiff repeated that lie on the Senate floor Wednesday. 

During an interview about the Russia investigation, Trump once suggested that he might fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He said that Article II of the Constitution gives him the authority “to do whatever I want” when it comes to the personnel who work for the executive branch. Democrats have taken that statement out of context and twisted it to suggest that Trump believes he’s a dictator. 

Of course, the president doesn’t think he’s a dictator. In fact, he has been obstructed by unelected judges more than any president in history.

Here’s the bottom line: scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff repeatedly insisted that Trump colluded with Russia, that the evidence was “in plain sight.” He insisted that the FBI acted properly when it spied on the Trump campaign. He lied about not having contact with the so-called “whistleblower." 

Why would senators or the American people believe anything scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff says?

The scumbag/liar-Schiff Bowl vs. the Super Bowl

Initial ratings suggest that 11 million people tuned in to watch the first day of the Senate’s impeachment proceedings. That’s down by nearly three million from the opening day of the House impeachment hearings. 

In comparison, about 98 million people watched the Super Bowl last year.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/68112?mailing_id=4821&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4821&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Witnesses and the whistleblower

Senators continue to haggle over whether to call additional witnesses and who those witnesses might be. Democrats still want former National Security Advisor John Bolton and White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Republicans maintain that the House should have done its job in calling witnesses and that the Senate is responsible only to try the evidence at hand. Nevertheless, if witnesses must be called, they want to hear from loose lips liar-Joe and Hunter Biden and the so-called “whistleblower.”

The Democrats’ entire case hinges on Trump’s request that Ukrainian officials investigate Hunter Biden’s sweetheart deal with Burisma. Anyone with an IQ above 50 can connect the dots between Hunter’s profiteering and the political position of then VP loose lips liar-Joe Biden. To suggest that they would not be on a witness list is absurd. Democrats even opened the door to Hunter’s testimony by protesting a bit too loudly that he has nothing to do with corruption allegations against his father.

The “whistleblower” and his handler scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff would also have to be on the witness list. When that collusion was revealed, suddenly Democrats no longer wanted to hear from the whistleblower.

He just became even less desirable this week after Paul Sperry of RealClearInvestigations revealed this inconvenient tidbit: “Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella — the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous ‘whistleblower’ who touched off Trump’s impeachment — was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.”

And Fox News’s Laura Ingraham reported that the whistleblower also has some extremely inconvenient connections to the loose lips liar-Bidens and Burisma.

Clearly, Democrats don’t want any of these witnesses to see the light of day in the Senate trial — with the exception of commie-Bernie Sanders, whose rising political fortunes would clearly benefit from seeing the loose lips liar-Bidens locked up in Senate testimony.

scumbag liar-Nadler’s accusation backfires

House Judiciary Committee Chairman scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler, whose personal animus toward Trump dates back to the early 1980s, challenged Republicans on witnesses. “Will you bring Ambassador Bolton here? Will you permit us to present you with the entire record of the president’s misconduct?” he asked. “Or will you instead choose to be complicit in the president’s cover-up? So far, I’m sad to say, I see a lot of senators voting for a cover-up, voting to deny witnesses. [It’s] an absolutely indefensible vote — obviously a treacherous vote.”

That “cover-up” language is part of the Democrats’ strategy to win the Senate by accusing Senate Republicans of obstructing a fair trial. But, for now at least, scumbag liar-Nadler’s hyperbolic charge appears to have backfired.

GOP senators rejected Nadler’s characterization. rino-Susan Collins said she was “stunned by Congressman scumbag liar-Nadler’s approach,” while rino-Lisa Murkowski said she was “offended,” and Ron Johnson called scumbag liar- it “offensive.”

scumbag liar-Nadler may have just united Republicans against voting to call any witnesses. Nice work.

scumbag/liar-Schiff’s whiff

House Intelligence Committee Chairman scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff gave an impassioned speech Thursday to make the case against Trump, though he led with a “joke” about hoping senators “don’t choose imprisonment” over paying attention to him. He opined at length with an exceedingly mendacious interpretation of events before concluding, “If right doesn’t matter, we’re lost. If the truth doesn’t matter, we’re lost. The Framers couldn’t protect us from ourselves if right and truth don’t matter.”

To hear scumbag/liar-Schiff lecture on right and truth is laughably absurd. scumbag/liar-Schiff was completely wrong about FISA surveillance of Trump’s campaign, which launched impeachment charade No. 1. He’s the man who, as we mentioned, colluded with the whistleblower through his staffers and then lied about it. He knew the case against Trump was so weak he fabricated Trump’s conversation for dramatic effect.

Moreover, scumbag/liar-Schiff’s party calls a preborn baby a clump of cells that can be aborted. scumbag/liar-Schiff’s party says a man can claim he’s a woman and play women’s sports and use women’s bathrooms. scumbag/liar-Schiff’s party claims that marriage can mean two men. scumbag/liar-Schiff’s party believes that taking your money to pay someone else who doesn’t work is the moral thing to do. scumbag/liar-Schiff’s party believes that Trump is corrupt and that American voters can’t be trusted to weigh in.

Is this really the man or the party to judge the president or to lecture anyone about right and truth?   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68134?mailing_id=4821&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4821&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

I love definitions because they help focus the mind. For decades, we are said to have been in a culture war. As in any war, it helps to know one’s enemy.

One online dictionary defines culture this way: “the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.”

One secondary definition is under the subheading anthropology: “the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.” I especially like that second definition.

So culture is a sum total. It is also about ways of living by more than a few humans, with all of that being willed to succeeding generations.

Those of a certain age remember what their parents or grandparents transmitted to them following the Great Depression and World War II. It was the sum total of values and beliefs they shared, the values held by those Tom Brokaw correctly labeled the greatest generation.

Yes, they were imperfect, just as we are, sinners incapable of saving themselves apart from God’s mercy and grace. But they saved a nation — several nations — because they embodied the things that mattered most in life: duty, honor, and country. They not only wanted to restore such things to Europe and preserve them for America but also sought to pass these down to their children and grandchildren. They had learned them from their parents. It is why they went to war, and although thousands did not come back, their values remained, at least until the self-indulgent 1960s and the generation that followed (as critiqued in my 1994 book, The Things That Matter Most).

Today that clash of their culture with ours is stark. My grandmother once admonished me for using words she said nice young men don’t say in public. The words that offended her were toilet paper. Imagine what this woman, born in 1888, would think of the words heard on TV, in movies, and on the streets today.

Return to the definition given earlier and particularly notice the words built up. This suggests to me that the way to change a culture is not from the top down but from the bottom up, not through Washington but through the human heart and individual choices.

It might be too late for that, but it is not too late to make choices for ourselves and for our families, especially where we send our young children to school. It amazes me that so many parents — conservative and Christian parents — see no problem in sending their children to state schools, where they learn they evolved from slime and the reason they like bananas on their cereal is that their nearest relative is at the zoo.

Okay, I exaggerate, but not by much. If your child is a soldier, would you be okay if he or she were trained in a country that was the enemy of the United States? Doesn’t the question answer itself? Why, then, would you knowingly and willingly send your child to a school — and then a university — that undermines the values, beliefs, and faith you have tried to teach them?

Don’t answer that you want them to be ambassadors for God. I have met many ambassadors, and none are eight-year-olds. Children, like soldiers, must be trained and indoctrinated with the knowledge and principles of the nation (or kingdom) they are expected to serve. Look up two words in a concordance. They are teach and learn. The verses in Scripture that include these words instruct godly parents in what God expects when it comes to children on loan to us for a brief time.

Legions of young men and women taught such things will build up a culture and ultimately a nation. It is the only way to win a culture war.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/68088?mailing_id=4819&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4819&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

The first day of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump was largely taken up with procedural issues. Senators argued over and then adopted an organizing resolution laying out the rules under which the trial will proceed.

In his opening statement, Minority Leader Chuck scumbag-Schumer, D-N.Y., charged that the resolution proposed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was “partisan,” a “national disgrace,” and a “dark day in Senate history.”

All of this heated rhetoric was based on scumbag-Schumer’s misleading claim that McConnell’s resolution was unfair and significantly different from the resolution governing scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton’s trial. Yet the resolution adopted by the Senate (after Republicans voted down and tabled a series of Democratic amendments) is substantially the same as the resolution approved by the Senate 100-0 for the scumbag/liar-Clinton trial.

On Thursday of last week, the preliminaries required to even debate this issue were accomplished when Senate President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, swore in the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, who will preside over the trial under Section 3 of Article I of the Constitution. Roberts then swore in all of the senators.

Both sides have already filed briefs with the Senate. On Jan. 18 the House filed a 100-plus page “Trial Memorandum” and “Statement of Material Facts” outlining its case against President Trump.

The president filed an answer the same day, disputing the basis for his impeachment, calling it a “dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president” and “a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election.”

The House then filed a response to the president on Jan. 20 accusing the president of conduct intended to “bury the evidence” against him and to “cheat in the next election.” The president’s lawyers filed their own 100-page plus “Trial Memorandum” with an extensive appendix also on Jan. 20.

So what are the differences between the scumbag/liar-Clinton and Trump resolutions? Both provide that the House shall file with the Senate all “publicly available materials” produced by the House committees involved in the impeachment investigations, including “transcripts of public hearings or mark-ups and any materials printed by the House of Representatives” pursuant to the impeachment resolutions.

The only difference is that in the scumbag/liar-Clinton case, these materials were automatically admitted into evidence. The Trump resolution provides that they will also be admitted into evidence “subject to any hearsay, evidentiary, or other objections that the President may make after opening presentations." That makes sense from both a fairness and fundamental due process standpoint.

Why? Because in the scumbag/liar-Clinton impeachment investigation, unlike the Trump impeachment investigation, representatives of both political parties were allowed to fully cross-examine and call witnesses of their choice.

In the current case, House Democrats changed the rules to prevent Republicans and the president’s lawyers from being able to fully participate, cross-examine witnesses, or even call witnesses they believed had important relevant information.

So it makes sense for the president’s legal team to be able to object to hearsay evidence, evidence produced by witnesses that neither they nor Republicans representatives were allowed to fully question, or where they raise serious questions about the credibility (or lack thereof) and relevance of particular testimony produced in the House.

Just like in the scumbag/liar-Clinton impeachment, each side is being given 24 hours to present its case. Both sides took three days to do so in the scumbag/liar-Clinton case, and the revised resolution also gives both parties 24 hours over "3 session days” to make their arguments.

The Trump resolution — just like the scumbag/liar-Clinton resolution — then gives senators 16 hours to question the prosecution and the defense teams, although they must do so through written questions submitted by the chief justice.

While Democrats have been pushing to decide on whether or not to call witnesses now before the trial has even begun, that would violate the procedures approved during the scumbag/liar-Clinton impeachment, which are replicated in the Trump resolution.

Then and now, the Senate will decide whether witnesses should be called only after both sides have presented their case and the senators have had the opportunity to submit their questions to the House managers and the president’s defense team.

Senators were given up to six hours to make and argue motions about subpoenaing witnesses or evidence not in the record during the scumbag/liar-Clinton trial; this revised resolution gives senators up to four hours to do so.

Furthermore, both impeachment resolutions have the same procedure when it comes to witnesses if the Senate decides to allow any to be called. No live witnesses, instead, the parties will take their depositions and the Senate will then decide which witnesses will appear through their taped depositions.

While there was a lot of political theater on Tuesday in which the Democrats claimed the system has been “rigged” and that Sen. McConnell and Republicans were not following precedent, the revised resolution sets up procedural rules that adhere to the scumbag/liar-Clinton precedent very closely.

The only substantive change is the ability of the president’s team to object to evidence produced by the House, a change necessitated by the way in which Democrats themselves changed the rules in the House and failed to follow the scumbag/liar-Clinton precedents used during the scumbag/liar-Clinton impeachment investigation

It is not the Senate’s job to complete the House’s investigation. If House Democrats believe they did not talk to all of the relevant witnesses, why did they speed ahead with an impeachment vote before doing so?

The substantive fireworks in the impeachment trial will start Wednesday. That’s when the Senate will hear any motions filed by the parties (other than motions to subpoena witnesses or documents) and House managers will begin to present their case against the president.

Everyone in Washington will be watching. Will the rest of America? 

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/68087?mailing_id=4819&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4819&utm_campaign=snap

Of course, many journalists appear to be blind to that bias. Caldara argues that this blindness is due to a media culture that has become so “monolithically progressive” it can’t even find the political center anymore. Speaking to reporters about this reality is like “talking to an alcoholic about his drinking,” he said. The reporter “honestly can’t see the issue and will angrily suggest you are the one with the problem.”

As evidence of the hard-left bent within MSM culture, Caldara points to the AP stylebook, which is a repository of “progressively loaded language.” He argues that the stylebook is not merely a “dictionary-like guide for reporters and editors.” Instead, “What it actually does is cement terminology to promote political conclusions. It declares the winners and losers in political debates.” He then observes several examples of how the AP stylebook pushes a blatant leftist agenda, including the scientifically false claim that gender isn’t binary.

Caldara writes, “It’s admirable that reporters want to be compassionate to transgender individuals and those transitioning, as we all should be. But AP reporters first have a duty to the truth, or so they say. There are only two sexes, identified by an XX or XY chromosome. That is the very definition of binary. The AP ruling it isn’t so doesn’t change science. It’s a premeditative attempt to change culture and policy. It’s activism.”

Well, like that alcoholic in Caldara’s insightful example, the Denver Post’s opinion editor, Megan Schrader, wouldn’t accept or even tolerate his accurate assessment of the MSM and fired him. Interestingly, Caldara was one of the paper’s most-read columnists, and now Schrader is looking to fill his position with another “conservative” writer. Following his firing, Caldara noted that Schrader “cares deeply” about those who have been victimized but his “frustration is that [Schrader] doesn’t quite understand that the speech code she’s pushing is having an opposite effect … of what she wants.”

Remember when liberals were all about free speech? Those days are long gone.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68077?mailing_id=4819&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4819&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Such reaffirmation is a welcome sign. Three Supreme Court decisions — Engel v. Vitale (1962), Murray v. Curlett (1963), and Abington Township School District v. Schempp (1963) — fundamentally changed the way the First Amendment’s religious protections had been previously understood. In short, a Supreme Court that leaned decidedly left during the 1960s appeared more determined to endorse freedom from religion than freedom of religion.

In Engel, the Court ruled 6-1 that a prayer written by New York state’s Board of Regents and said before classes each day was “wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause,” according to Justice Hugo Black writing for the majority.

In Abington Township, which also involved the Murray  ruling, the Court determined 8–1 that school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools was also unconstitutional. “The reading of the verses, even without comment, possesses a devotional and religious character and constitutes in effect a religious observance,” the Court  insisted. Moreover, the Court also asserted the fact that “some pupils, or theoretically all pupils, might be excused from attendance at the exercises does not mitigate the obligatory nature of the ceremony.”

That the Board of Regents prayer was voluntary and that a religious observance with attendance of zero could still be construed as obligatory is indicative of a Court likely influenced by the tenor of the times. The American Left still reveres the social revolution of the ‘60s, and while there were welcome advances in personal freedom and proper challenges to the racial status quo, the rebellion against traditional views of sex and the wholesale advancement of Secular Humanism gave us a society in which sex became exponentially more hedonistic, morality became “relative,” and the societal bedrocks of marriage and the nuclear family began unraveling.

Ironically, in Torcaso v. Watkins, SCOTUS referred to Secular Humanism as a religion “which [does] not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God.” Justice Black stated, “We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.’ Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against nonbelievers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”

What about the other way around? Justice Potter Stewart, the lone dissenting vote in Abington Township, had a prescient take on exactly that. He asserted that the removal of prayer from schools “led not to true neutrality with respect to religion, but to the establishment of a religion of secularism.”

Was Stewart right? Over the ensuing decades, several states have passed laws either permanently enjoining parental notification, no law at all, or judicial bypass of parents with regard to a minor getting an abortion. If there is another surgical procedure that can be administered to a child absent parent notification, much less permission, one is hard-pressed to know what it is.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In American schools today, a fear-based global-warming agenda is  disseminated with impunity, and math is taught from a “social justice” perspective. A radical leftist teacher-training program known as “Deep Equity” addresses the “dynamics of privilege and power [that] must be confronted to impact real change,” and indoctrination  exemplified by a “privilege scorecard” given to students at at Saratoga Springs High School has become routine. Furthermore, several schools teach the transgender agenda to children beginning in kindergarten, and many of the states in which that agenda is disseminated have no opt-out clause.

Thus, in stark contrast to the Supreme Court’s take on religion in schools, nothing is voluntary, the attendance will never be zero, and the ongoing dissemination of Secular Humanism, a.k.a. progressive ideology, in America’s classrooms leaves little doubt that Stewart was right on the money.

The Trump administration has released updated guidance on religious prayer in public elementary and secondary schools that will reaffirm the right that students are allowed to pray alone or in groups. Nine federal agencies, including the Justice Department, Health and Human Services, and the Department Education, will be involved in making the changes.

The original guidance on school prayer was issued in 2003. And while this order is similar, it establishes a state-mandated filing process for complaints against local schools and school districts. It requires those states to provide the federal government with an annual list of local public schools and districts with “a policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer.” States must also report local schools that fail to certify they don’t have unconstitutional prayer policies.

Trump pulled no punches with regard to the motivation behind the change. “You have things happening today that 10 or 15 years ago would have been unthinkable,” he stated in response to a question about his views on the culture wars. “Taking the word God down, taking the word Christmas out. I think we’ve turned that one around very good. I think we’ve turned both of them around very good.”

The order itself is equally straightforward. It explains that “teachers and other public school officials, acting in their official capacities, may not lead their classes in prayer, devotional readings from the Bible, or other religious activities,” while making it clear that “students and teachers do not ‘shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Unsurprisingly, there was blowback from the usual precincts. “These rules undermine the civil rights and religious freedom of millions of our most vulnerable Americans who rely on social services — with particularly dire consequences for LGBTQ people and religious minorities,” said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Nonsense. What they do is provide students with something leftists fear the most: a counter-argument that cannot be silenced by judicial fiat. If leftists were truly convinced they own the franchise on “enlightened” thinking, they would welcome a robust debate between themselves and people of faith.

That they don’t speaks volumes.

Moreover, they have more to worry about. SCOTUS will soon rule on a case determining whether state laws excluding religious organizations from government funding available to others is constitutional. If not, school choice would also include funding for religious schools that many American prefer, especially when the alternative choice is a union-centric public school system with a 50-year track record of failure.

“If we win this case, it will be the U.S. Supreme Court once again saying that school choice is fully constitutional and it’s a good thing and it’s something parents should have,” said Erica Smith, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs.

In an age where the totally bankrupt assertion of “my truth” resonates, it’s not a good thing — it’s a great thing.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68095?mailing_id=4819&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4819&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

scumbag/liar-Schiff’s statement is scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” comment repackaged. This is simply how Democrats think about vast swaths of America, proving that they’re not really after Trump; they’re after you, the voter. Ever since Trump defeated scumbag/liar-Clinton, Democrats have been seeking to impeach the vote of the American people.

Also on Wednesday, the Senate received a letter signed by 21 Republican state attorneys general calling the Democrats’ basis for impeachment illegitimate and for it to be “explicitly rejected.” The AGs argue that the Democrats’ “corrupt motives theory is dangerous to democracy because it encourages impeachment whenever the President exercises his constitutional authority in a way that offends the opposing political party, which is predisposed to view his motives with skepticism and motivated by its own motives to regain that very office.” While this letter won’t stop the impeachment trial, it may serve Senate Republicans. As The Wall Street Journal editorial board argues, “This might take the form of a Senate resolution at the time of acquittal. The crucial point is to reject impeachment as a regular tool of partisan punishment, reserving it for genuine cases of presidential abuse.”

Meanwhile, the Democrats’ push to call more witnesses is proving tricky. There has been some speculation that Democrats would be open to a deal exchanging John Bolton for Hunter Biden, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck scumbag-Schumer quickly shot that down, saying, “I think it’s off the table.” Then he quickly spun it as Republicans wanting to use it “to smear the loose lips liar-Bidens.” The fact of the matter is that the crux of the whistleblower’s complaint rests entirely on Trump’s legitimate request that the loose lips liar-Bidens’ shady behavior be investigated. It’s disingenuous to claim the loose lips liar-Bidens are not tied up in this, but that’s par for the course with these Democrats.

The fact is Democrats will need the votes of at least four Republicans to get Bolton on the stand, and for those votes they will need to give those Republicans something in return. However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is playing it smart, stating that the Senate will be open to calling only those witnesses the House itself called; no new witnesses will be considered. He also warned, “It could dramatically change the separation of powers between the House and the Senate if the Senate agrees we will conduct both the investigation and the trial of an impeachment.”

In any case, as Mark Alexander has asserted for months, “What Democrats want is Republicans on the record voting against witnesses so they can perpetuate the ‘Trump is guilty and Republicans covered for him’ myth. They will then use those votes in campaign ads against a few Republicans they believe are vulnerable in November. The Demo impeachment charade has always been about retaking the Senate so that if Trump is reelected they can block conservative SCOTUS nominations. Republicans should call their bluff and seek witnesses — and scumbag-Schumer and scumbag/liar-Schiff will run for cover.”

Finally, as far as the House Democrats offering any new or compelling arguments against Trump, the sentiment among Senate Republicans was summed up by Wyoming’s John Barrasso, who commented, “Six hours of testimony so far today… I didn’t hear anything new at all.” That matters not because the Senate is supposed to hear new things but because nothing Democrats have presented so far merits impeachment or removal.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68098?mailing_id=4819&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4819&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Much of the credit for this significant drop goes to Trump’s multifaceted approach in addressing the problem of illegal immigration, which includes the construction of border wall, the new “remain in Mexico” asylum policy, and agreements with Mexico and Central American countries to actively engage and limiting illegal immigration coming through their countries. Slowly but steadily Trump has made progress on one of his signature campaign promises, despite Democrat efforts to prevent him.

Speaking of Democrats, presidential candidate commie-Bernie Sanders recently expressed his desire to end and reverse Trump’s successes in combatting illegal immigration. When asked if he supported tearing down the border wall, Sanders responded, “I don’t know, maybe the answer is yes.” He then equivocated slightly by suggesting, “If it’s going to cost me billions to tear it down, maybe the money would be better spent on child care in this country.” But commie-Sanders didn’t stop with the wall; he ridiculously asserted that he would effectively end all but a fraction of deportations. “If someone has been convicted of a terrible, terrible crime, that might be an exception to the rule,” he explained. “A moratorium on 99% of deportations is nothing to sniff at, and I think the undocumented community would be very proud of that.”

While the “undocumented community” — otherwise known as illegal aliens — might be proud of that, no American should be. The truth is the only reason commie-Sanders and Democrats are advocating for open borders and an end to deportations of illegals is because they see them as future voters. It’s all just about politics and lust for power. Sanders, who claims to want to serve Americans, expresses no concern for protecting and defending American citizens first, which is the primary job of the president. No, he’d rather blast those who are working to protect our citizens and secure our borders as acting selfishly and immorally. Frankly, it’s despicable.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68047?mailing_id=4816&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4816&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Several recent stories bear this out.

On Sunday, The New York Times made its 2020 presidential endorsement. Well, two, actually: Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth dinky/liar-Warren.

Justifying the dual endorsement, the Times wrote, “The events of the past few years have shaken the confidence of even the most committed institutionalists. We are not veering away from the values we espouse, but we are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird those values.” One wonders whether the NYT editors were looking in a mirror when they wrote that line.

The Times called dinky/liar-Warren, the radical, a “gifted storyteller,” which is a hilariously diplomatic way of saying she is a pathological liar. The paper called Klobuchar the “standard-bearer” for Democrat centrists, before noting she is campaigning for an economy-destroying policy of net-zero emissions by 2050 and a “more robust public option” in healthcare. In other words, socialized medicine.

It is a testament to how far left the Democrat Party has veered that Klobuchar could be considered a centrist.

Though claiming to be nonpartisan, the last time the NYT endorsed a Republican was Eisenhower in 1956, even though two very accomplished Republican women, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and former Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, have run for president in recent years. Obviously, conservative women need not apply for the Times’s endorsement.

In other news, the Grammys last week fired its first-ever female boss, Deborah Dugan, in an apparent attempt to silence her. Though the Recording Academy (which owns the Grammys) claims she was put on leave because of allegations of “misconduct” (allegedly, a staffer has accused her of bullying), the timing is highly suspicious. Three weeks ago, Dugan sent a memo to the Recording Academy’s HR department, accusing the company of attempting to silence those who came forward with allegations of “sexual harassment, financial impropriety, and [improper] insider benefits.”

Apparently, protecting women is less important to the Grammys than protecting Hollywood’s wealth, power, and cultural influence.

Of course, these same progressive cultural icons lecture the rest of us that we must #BelieveAllWomen, yet are silent on — or attack — women who make accusations against powerful progressive/Democrat men. Where are the progressives who came to the defense of Juanita Broaddrick, who credibly accused former president scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton of rape? Likewise, Virginia Democrat Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax was accused of rape by two separate women, who gave very detailed accounts of what happened. Yet Fairfax refused to resign, and the story has been quietly swept under the rug.

And it was an open secret for decades in Hollywood that producer Harvey Weinstein was a serial rapist, yet the Hollywood glitterati looked the other way as he ruined the lives of countless women. Sacrificing these young women to his lusts was the price they paid for their fame and fortune.

The same goes for billionaire pedophile Jeffrey “Didn’t Kill Himself” Epstein. He was a close friend and bankroller of Hollywood leftists and Democrat politicians, and they turned a blind eye to his crimes in order to advance their careers.

In other news, last Saturday was the fourth annual Women’s March in Washington, DC, and other cities around the country. But when you have to ask, “Does it still matter?” the answer is no, it doesn’t.

In 2017, an estimated three to five million people attended Women’s March rallies in more than 650 cities across the U.S. Last year, that number dropped to around 700,000.

Last week, the march in DC appears to have drawn less than six thousand people. In LA, Philadelphia, and Chicago, there were not enough protesters to even fill a city park.

A major part of the problem appears to be that the so-called Women’s March never even had any pretense of being about women but rather about advancing leftist causes, including abortion, subsidized housing, illegal immigration, and climate change.

And after effectively banning conservative, pro-life women from participating, the Women’s March was heavily criticized for its ties to anti-Semitic groups, including the notorious hate-monger and anti-Semite “Reverend” scumbag-Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.

Luckily, there is a home for those who truly believe in advancing the cause of women, including protecting the unborn, because pro-life is pro-woman. They can be found this week at the March for Life, which turns out hundreds of thousands of pro-life supporters each year.

The idea that the progressive Left supports women is laughable. It doesn’t want equality for women, where women compete on their own merits; it wants special rights. It doesn’t support women; it supports leftist women and attacks conservative women. It doesn’t protect women; it sacrifices them to the powerful and it kills them in the womb.

It is the definition of anti-woman.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68066?mailing_id=4816&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4816&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Trump blasted the climate alarmists for their fearmongering and destructive agenda: “Fear and doubt is not a good thought process because this is a time for tremendous hope and joy and optimism and action. But to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse. They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune-tellers. … They predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the ‘70s, and an end of oil in the 1990s. These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform, and control every aspect of our lives.”

He pointedly asserted, “We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy, wreck our country, or eradicate our Liberty. America will always be the proud, strong, and unyielding bastion of freedom.”

Overall, Trump’s speech was positive and full of hope for the future despite the looming impeachment trial he is facing at home. He concluded by stating, “Above all else, we will forever be loyal to our workers, our citizens, and our families — the men and women who are the backbone of our economies, the heart of our communities, and the soul of our countries. Let us bring light to their lives one by one and empower them to light up the world.”   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68068?mailing_id=4816&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4816&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

House Democrats failed to make a compelling case for impeachment in their rush to vote before Christmas. They claim to have “overwhelming” evidence for impeachment, while simultaneously hollering about a Republican “coverup” to obstruct the evidence they need. House Democrats want the Senate to aid them by extending the investigation, including calling more witnesses that they didn’t bother calling (John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, for example. Anyone but Hunter Biden or the whistleblower!). That’s not the Senate’s job, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is playing it all about as well as he can.

“Democrats really don’t want to hear more witnesses,”  surmises The Wall Street Journal editorial board. “They merely want to pretend they do, get Republicans to vote against witnesses, and use that as an issue in November. Perhaps Republicans should call them on it.”

While the question of calling witnesses didn’t receive a vote yesterday, McConnell conceded to one more day for each side to present its case and to allow all House evidence without a Senate vote to admit it. The rules were officially adopted in a 53-47 party-line vote at 1:40 a.m.

Those who portray McConnell as having “caved” to moderates on those rules are either unfamiliar with Trump’s Art of the Deal or are willing to attribute such strategic moves only to Trump himself. McConnell has a strategy that provides political cover for Republicans in tough reelection battles like rino-Susan Collins, Martha McSally, and Cory Gardner. As a bonus, he can point to having compromised with Democrats in order to be as fair as possible. Of course, that won’t stop Democrats from caterwauling about a “rigged” trial all the way until Election Day.

But did we mention that Democrats like Chuck scumbag-Schumer have taken the opposite position on rules they took in the 1999 impeachment trial of scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton? We can’t quite put our finger on what’s different now…

Some highlights of the cases made by each side:

“The president is on trial in the Senate, but the Senate is on trial in the eyes of the American people,” pronounced scumbag liar-Jerry Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He slammed Republicans for balking at more witnesses because “only guilty people try to hide evidence.” Except scumbag liar-Nadler insisted just last week that testimony from either Hunter or loose lips liar-Joe Biden would not be “relevant” because he had a “mountain of evidence” that was perfectly sufficient to impeach and remove Trump.

“Let me be very blunt,” said House Intelligence Chairman scumbag/liar-Adam Schiff. “Right now a great many, perhaps even most, Americans do not believe there will be a fair trial. They don’t believe that the Senate will be impartial. They believe that the result is pre-cooked, the president will be acquitted.” Funny, but scumbag/liar-Schiff pre-cooked the impeachment inquiry in the House.

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, on the other hand, was right on the mark. Democrats have “no case” against Trump. But never mind that, he said; “They’re not here to steal one election, they’re here to steal two elections.”   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/68070?mailing_id=4816&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4816&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body